著者
中尾 央
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.2, pp.75-86, 2008-01-31

The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of Trivers's reciprocal altruism model in the evolutionary study of human behavior. Human behavioral ecologists use the reciprocal altruism model to predict and explain human behaviors. In evolutionary psychology, on the other hand, Cosmides and Tooby use this model not to explain human behaviors but to predict a module for detecting cheaters. I will argue these different applications of the model reflect different construals of the model.
著者
田中 泉吏
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.2, pp.29-42, 2008-01-31

Evolutionary biologists, together with philosophers of biology, build two different, but mathematically equivalent models for a single selection process in a hierarchically structured population. I call one the BPS (broad-sense particle selection) model and the other the MLS (multi-level selection) model, and delineate a distinction between them in terms of parameterization. It is observed that in other sciences scientists employ multiple models to analyze and represent aspects of real-world phenomena indirectly. I argue that the same observation applies to biologists who employ both BPS and MLS models.
著者
中尾 央
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.7, pp.27-48, 2013-02-28

For the last three decades, the gene-centrism have been criticized not only in philosophy of biology but also in some other scientific fields. Evolutionary developmental biology, ecological developmental biology, and medicine have emphasized "epigenetics" (i.e., researches on epigenetic interactions) to explain novelties or variations of traits, and some argue that epigenetic researches are a kind of "revolution" against the gene-centrism. A stronger criticism can be found in developmental systems theory: Some advocators argue that we cannot determine the specific causes of trait formation, and that the gene-centrism is cleary wrong. This article focuses on researches on genomic information especially in medicine and argues that we should distinguish between empirical and methodological gene-centrism, and the latter can be still defended. Actually there have been discovered many statistically relevant genes for some specific diseases especially in genome-wide association studies, and they promote further epigenetic or developmental studies, suggesting that methodological gene-centrism is useful in these cases.
著者
中尾 央
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.7, pp.27-48, 2013-02-28

For the last three decades, the gene-centrism have been criticized not only in philosophy of biology but also in some other scientific fields. Evolutionary developmental biology, ecological developmental biology, and medicine have emphasized "epigenetics" (i.e., researches on epigenetic interactions) to explain novelties or variations of traits, and some argue that epigenetic researches are a kind of "revolution" against the gene-centrism. A stronger criticism can be found in developmental systems theory: Some advocators argue that we cannot determine the specific causes of trait formation, and that the gene-centrism is cleary wrong. This article focuses on researches on genomic information especially in medicine and argues that we should distinguish between empirical and methodological gene-centrism, and the latter can be still defended. Actually there have been discovered many statistically relevant genes for some specific diseases especially in genome-wide association studies, and they promote further epigenetic or developmental studies, suggesting that methodological gene-centrism is useful in these cases.
著者
有賀 暢迪
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.4, pp.21-43, 2010-02-28

Joseph-Louis Lagrange, one of the eminent mathematicians in the eighteenth century, had given a lecture on calculus as early as in the latter half of the 1750s. One will find this lecture interesting not only because he introduces the differential calculus with special emphasis on the concept of limit, which seemed novel for that time, but also that Lagrange refers to several textbooks most of which were published in France. Given these points, the present article attempts to consider Lagrange's early thought on the foundation of calculus in the context of French controversy. In France, after the reception of Leibnizian calculus through l'Hôpital's textbook (1696), Fontenelle had constructed a mathematical system based on infinite quantities (1727). In 1740s, however, the supposition of infinitesimals were criticized by supporters of fluxions, among others Maclaurin (1742, translated in 1749 into French), and then in 1750s d'Alembert proposed the concept of limit as the "basis of the true metaphysics of differential calculus." Although Lagrange does not mention d'Alembert's name, perhaps he has been influenced by the latter. It is in this context of French infinitesimal controversy that one can get a better view of young Lagrange's concern with the foundation problem.
著者
網谷 祐一
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.5, pp.1-20, 2011-02-28

The species problem is the longstanding puzzle concerning the nature of the species category or how to correctly define "species." Many philosophers, as well as biologists, have attributed the recalcitrant nature of the species problem to the gap between the essentialistic nature of the species concept, on the one hand, and the vague boundaries of actual species, on the other. In this paper I will examine two possible readings of this account. On the first reading, the gap comes from the lack of non-essentialistic definitions of "species." The second reading suggests that the gap comes from biologists' psychological disposition to hold essentialistic conception of species, even when non-essentialistic definitions are available to them. Then I will argue that evidence favors the second reading over the first.
著者
網谷 祐一
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.2, pp.133-149, 2008-01-31

Robert Elliot's criticism of ecological restoration is a classical work in environmental ethics. He argues that a restored nature, because of its lack of natural origin, does not have the kind of intrinsic value an original nature has (the anti-restoration thesis). His work shares with many environmental philosophers an assumption that if nature is proved to have intrinsic value then this gives us philosophically sufficient guidance on practical environmental problems. This paper examines his justification for the anti-restoration thesis and this assumption. I shall agree with Elliot that the antirestoration thesis is justified by appealing to the naturalness of origin. However, this does not necessarily help us decide whether or not a particular restoration project should be done. Not all discussions of intrinsic value help us solve practical problems of restoration. Environmental pragmatists are right in this regard.
著者
中尾 央
出版者
京都大学文学部科学哲学科学史研究室
雑誌
科学哲学科学史研究 (ISSN:18839177)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.4, pp.45-64, 2010-02-28

This paper partly defends and partly criticizes Sterelny's maneuver on the meme's-eye view through comparison with Blackmore, Dennett, and Distin's arguments. His maneuver consists of two parts: the coevolution of memes and us, and meme's usefulness and modularity. I argue that Sterelny's maneuver is partly successful in that the coevolution of memes and us can defend the meme's-eye view against the claim that memes are unnecessary for the explanation of cultural evolution, comparing this first part of the maneuver with Blackmore and Dennett's "memetic drive". Moreover, Sterelny argues that meme's usefulness and modularity can also save the meme's-eye view and are important for memetic evolution. While defending the latter view referring to Distin's arguments, I argue that these properties can be explained in terms of our cognitive and social environments, therefore we cannot use these properties when defending the meme's-eye view. Finally, by considering whether the modified version of Sterelny's maneuver can be applied to other cases or not, I investigate the future of the meme's-eye view.